with his Presbytery But the Bishops themselves were judged by the Synod Moreover when the world began to be filled with Churches and the Metropolitanes themselves stood in need of particular Government over themselves for although they grew in number Patriarches yet all were not according to their places either prudent or vigilant for in all orders of men Note those of worth are but few the Fathers did commend the care of whole Provinces together unto certain Bishops of the chief Cities which persons they afterward called Patriarchs Thus far Bucer there And after noting the abuse of these powers and the usurpation of them by the Bishops of Rome whom hee calleth Antichrist which I note to evidence that a man may be full for Episcopacy yea and Archiepiscopacy and yet be as full against Popery which some should mark hee subjoyns what is very considerable in these times viz. At quia omnino necesse est ut singuli Clerici suos habeant proprios Custodes Curatores instaurenda est ut Episcoporum ita et Archidiaconorum aliorumque omnium quibuscunque censeantur nominibus quibus portio aliqua commissa est custodiendi gubernandique Cleri authoritas potestas sed vigilantia animadversio ne quis omnino sit in hoc ordine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But because saith hee it is altogether necessary that every Minister and Clergy man should have their proper Guardians and Governours both the Authority of Bishops Bishops and of Archdeacons Archdeacons and of all * As Metropolitanes c. other officers by what names soever they be called unto whom any part of the power of guarding and governing the Ministry is committed ought to be restored As also watchfulness and observation least any man whatsoever of this profession be without government and not under rule Thus far hee With whose testimony not onely for his learning and piety both which were eminent in him but also for his reference to this Church as having been one of the reformers of it I close these Allegations and Witnesses Vide Bucer Script Anglican Onely adding this That had the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas observed this counsel of these their own learned men they had not given that advantage to the adversary by making a Schism in Government from the whole Universal Church scandalizing it also Nor had they given occasion to those who out of true or pretended imitation of them have brought Scotland and by it England the glory and refuge of the Reformed Churches and by both Ireland into those horrid confusions which have fallen upon them upon that quarrel as is noted by (a) Icon. Basilic Medit. 17. one who well knew and is not denyed by (b) Ministeâ—s Reasons for Reformation 1660. in the Preface others who had no small activity in blowing those fires some coals whereof they have still retained and by them attempted to kindle new flames as is noted by (c) Kings Declaration Oct. 5. 1660. pag. 7. another Authentique Author And for those our Brethren who had destroyed this Government among us it is to be feared it may be in many of them upon the like ground that the Rabbin saith the Jew the body of them D. Kimchi in Isa 53.9 for so hee expoundeth that Prophecy which the Chaldee Version applies to the Messiah as wee do was slaughtered in the captivity whilst hee explains those word with the rich in his death Hee saith it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Which sentence because it is in Rhyme wee may thus render The Wether had no fault but that His fleece was good and hee was fat Mark 12.7 According to this Come let us kill him and the Inheritance shall bee ours As it hath appeared since SECT III. Exceptions against the Government and Discipline THe Brethren the Authors of the former Tract Reasons of the necessity of Reformation p. 40. except also against the Government and Jurisdiction of the Bishops First That it is not by Divine Right in this Nation but that the Church of England is founded in the estate of Prelacy within the Realm of England by Law and authority of Parliament onely Where first we accept of their Concession Prelacy Episcopacy established by Law in England 25. Edw. 3. Anno 1350. then our Church Government by Episcopacy is established by Law in this Nation Now if they have this office by Law they must also have a power for the Execution of it as a Prelacy that is a superiour order of men to govern in Ecclesiastical Affairs which is their jurisdiction and power to exercise Discipline But the Brethren reply Object that this is taken away by the Act of 17th Carol. I. 11. wherein their sitting in Parliament is removed and the power of the King to authorize Commissioners for Causes Ecclesiastical which was granted by an Act 1. Eliz. cap. 1. Reas neces ref Pag. 51. And that there is not any branch or clause in that whole Act that gives more or other jurisdiction to Bishops or any other Ecclesiastical persons whatsoever But Answer unto this is given elsewhere in this Treatise therefore I leave it here and come to that which is more material viz. The Divine Right at least by consequent of that function Which having evidenced so plentifully before out of both Ancient and Modern Testimonies and those of some the greater Lights of the Reformed Churches And replyed to the Objections on the contrary And particularly because the Brethren do not here oppose it I shall need to say the less Onely take a verdict from one whom some of the Brethrens opinion cite as a witness which is St. Cyprian Which will at once carry with it both the Divine Right and also the inseparable adjunct of it though not a sole yet a superiour jurisdiction For that of sole jurisdiction seems a needless quarrel seeing the Bishop doth neither exercise any part of it alone but with others assistance and without which assistance hee cannot orderly administer it And the Church declares her self whilst shee appointeth in the ordering of Priests and consecrating of Bishops one of the greatest Acts pertaining to Government that there shall be other also assistant to the Bishop in Imposition of hands Though in that lesser point of Confirmation of Children and ordering of Deacons it is not so appointed though not excluding it But as I said Cyprian hath these words Neque enim aliunde haereses abortae sunt Cypr. lib. 1. Ep. 3. Vide in eand sentent ips lib. 3. Ep. 1. aut nata sunt Schismata quà m inde quod Sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur Nec Unus in Ecclesia ad tempus Sacerdos ad tempus Judex vice Christi cogitatur Cui si secundum Magisteria divina obtemperaret fraternitas Universa nemo adversum Sacerdotum Collegium quicquam moveret Let not the Reader nauseate this once or twice
adds Ejurationem spontalem excipio de qua nulla inter mortales dubitatio which I need not English Bilson of Subj Rebel part 3. edit Lond. 1586. pag. 276 280. because for substance the same is delivered before him by our own Bishop of Winchester I must confess saith he that except the Laws of those Realms do permit the people to stand on their right if the Prince would offer that wrong I dare not allow their arms Cases may fall out even in Christian Kingdoms where the people may plead their right against the Prince and not be charged with rebellion Phil. As when for example Theop. If the Prince should go about to subject his Kingdom to a forreign Realm or change the form of the Common-wealth from Empery to Tyranny or neglect the Laws established by common consent of Prince and People to execute his own pleasure In these and other cases which might be named if the Nobles and Commons joyn together to defend their antient and accustomed Liberty Regiment and Laws they may not well be counted Rebels I never denyed that the people might preserve the foundation But part 3. pag. 144. he saith It is the Popes Divinity that Princes have their power from the people which he saith they have from God freedom and form of their Common-wealth which they fore-prised when they first consented to have a King I never said That Kingdoms and Common-wealths might not proportion their States as they thought best by their publick Laws which afterward the Princes themselves may not violate In Kingdoms where Princes bear rule by the sword Princes will we do not mean the Princes private will against his Laws but his Precept derived from his Laws and agreeing with his Laws which though it be wicked yet may not be resisted of any subject with armed violence Mary when Princes offer their subjects not justice but force and despise all Laws to practise their lusts Not every nor any private man may take the sword to redress the Prince But if the LAWS of the land appoint the nobles as next to the King to assert him in doing right and with-hold him from doing wrong Note If the Laws appoint THEN be they licensed by mans LAW and so not prohibited by Gods to interpose themselves for safeguard of equity and innocency and by all lawful and needful means to procure the Prince to be reformed but in no case deprived Note Not disinherit where the Scepter is inherited But he explains himself further in the very next page viz. That he meant still according unto Law The rest of the Nobles saith he that did assist them the King of Navarre and the Prince of Conde against the King of France if it were the Kings act that did oppress them and not the Guises Note except the LAWS of the land do permit them means to save the State from open tyranny I wiâ—l not excuse And * part 3. pag. 144. elsewhere I will not saith he examine the Popes Divinity Zachary in his answer to the German Legates Aventin lib. p. 299. wherein he saith the people create their King and the people may when the cause so requireth forsake their King 't is you see the Popes Doctrine I will not saith he examine the Popes Divinity in that he saith Princes have their powers of the people which the Scripture saith they have of God And before part 2. p. m. 328. This is the Supremacy which we attribute to Princes that all men within their territories should obey their Laws or abide their pleasure and that no man on earth hath authority to take their Swords from them by Judicial sentence or Martial violence Howsoever as I said ☜ those things before may be so in Thesi and the matter absolutely considered yet being excited by the fruits to view all the roots again I cannot satisfie my conscience that in Hypothesi and in particular hîc and nunc Note Mr. Pyms speech at the charge of the Earl of Strasford pag. m. 5. Protection and Alleg. 1. Parliament Testimony Remonstr of the state of the Kingdom Novemb. 15. 1641. pag. 26. 1. Bills pâ—ss'd by the King the case was such with us at the beginning of the war And if there had been any urgency to any of those cases yet Mr. Pym whom all men know was no passionate Royallist saith If you take away the protection of the King the vigour and cheerfulness of Allegiance will be taken away though the OBLIGATION remain Protection then and Allegiance are not such correlatives as that they do se mutuò ponere tollere as some would have But to return That the case was not so with us and that this may appear to have been no groundless conceit of my own I produce the two Houses of Lords and Commons We acknowledge say they with much thankfulness that his Majesty hath passed more good Bills to the advantage of the subjects than have been in MANY AGES This for the matter of concessions pag. 23. 2. Security to the Subject Next for the Security hear them again The discontinuance of Parliaments is prevented by a Bill for Trìiennial Parliaments and the abrupt dissolution of this Parliament by another Bill by which it is provided it shall not be dissolved or adjourn without the consent of both Houses Which two Laws well considered may be thought more advantagious than ALL the former because they SECURE a full operation of the present remedy and afford a PERPETVAL spring of remedies for the future Thus the Parliament Sir Benjamin Rudyard his testimony Now secondly That these considerations did then woâ—k strongly upon the hearts of some of their own Members against engaging in the War may be seen by a speech printed of Sr. Benjamin Rudyards In hâ—s Epâ—stâ—e Dedicatâ—ry to him of one of his Trâ—ctates among the rest of Mr. Rous's works to whose worth and piety Mr. Francis Rous a member also gives upon his own long and intimate knowledge a very high elogy He in that speech in the House of Commons July the 9. Anno 1642. page 2. saith Mr. Speaker I am touched I am pierced with an apprehension of the honor of the House and success of Parliament The best way to give a stop to these desperate immenent mischiefs Sir B njamin Rudyard his speech in Parliament is to make a fair way for the KING 's REâ—VRN hither it will likewise give best satisfaction to the people and will be our best justification And again page 3. Note If any man could have credibly told us 1 that within three years you shall have a Parliament 2 that Ship-mony shall be taken away by an Act of Parliament 1. Acts passed the reasons and grounds of it so rooted out as that neither it nor any thing like it can ever grow up again 3 That Monopolies 4 the High-commission Court 5 the Star-chamber 6 the Bishops Votes shall be taken
the Kingdom Dec. 15. 1642. was the fountain of all the following mischiefs The very first line is Your Majesties most humble and loyal subjects the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled Next the Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy do declare That the Kings Majesty is the onely Supream Governor of this Realm over all persons and in all causes 2. Oathes of Supremacy and Allegiance 3 Eliz. cap. 1. Kings Answer to the Remonstrance of May 26. 1642. Remonstr of Lords and Commons Nov. 2. 1642. Ecclesiastical and Temporal and of all other his Dominions and Countries Yea and every Parliament-man before he can sit is bound by Law to swear them Now this is not answered in my judgment by a saying out of a Private * Fleta lib. 1. cap. 17. de justitiariis substituendis Lawyer that Rex habet in populo regendo superiores legem per quam factus est curiam suam videlicet Comites Barones And by that other that Rex est major singulis but minor universis For the former Author hath that sentence and words out of Bracton who hath several times also the quite contrary as shall appear Again It is against the tenor and current of Law and Lawyers and the known practise of the Nation Thirdly It may bear an other interpretation namely understanding the Law either of God who makes Kings Prov. 8. or of men made with the Kings consent whereunto he hath voluntarily obliged himself from which at first he might be free And by the superiority of his Court their legal jurisdiction conferred on them by his approbation for decision of ordinary controversies that may fall betwixt himself and his Subjects but not simply his superiors first because he calls it His Court now the owner is greater than the thing owned as such Again else the Earls and Barons were the superior power to the King Fourthly This refers not at all to the House of Commons whereof neither Fleta nor his Author Bracton in this sentence make any mention Again secondly the Oathes of Supremacy and Allegiance and the style the Parliament speak in of his Majesties loyal and humble subjects the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament Remonstr Nov. 2. 1642. are not answered by saying that this of supream head and governor over all persons Object in all causes is meant of singular persons rather than of Courts or of the collective Body of the whole Kingdom And that it is meant in Curia not in Camera in his Courts not in his private Capacity and properly onely in his high Court of Parliament wherein and wherewith his Majesty hath supream Power For first Answ 1 The Oathes speak comprehensively both of Persons and Causes over all and in all So again the style of humble and obedient subjects is spoken as from them as the two Houses of Parliament for so they say assembled in Parliament Now if Subjects then and there sure Soveraigns or associates in Soveraignty they cannot be the terms in the same respect are contradictory Thirdly If the King be acknowledged to be the fountain of justice as the Law and Lawyers say he is of which anon then both Laws and Courts flow from him and thence are called his Laws his Courts and so ordine naturae dignitatis both in nature and dignity must be before and above both His splendor is in his Courts but his Supremacy not onely there but in his person also from whence it was derived to his Courts For there must be a First in nature either the King or his Courts and if they be His Courts then he made them and therefore in esse naturae before them Neither doth it hence follow as is there inferred Object That then the King may over-rule all his Courts Ibid. even the Parliament it self and so the goodly frame of Government should soon be dissolved and Arbitrary power brought in Answ For the King having both consented and sworn to the Laws and to the maintaining the jurisdiction of his Courts acting according to those Laws is not now in that respect sui juris and arbitrary in Government but obliged both to God and man to act by Laws and to preserve his Courts unviolate But if any Court shall assume a greater power than the King and Law hath given them or act in opposition to that power from whom they had their being whilst he doth not openly reject all Laws and Government much less when he doth rationally together with as many or more both of Lords and Commons though excluded the formality of being in such a place judge that he acts according to Law in the main of his proceedings In such case and in such actings they are not such a Court nor are not authorised with power from above but act excentrically and as private persons unto whom the Declaration grants the King to be superior As the Army having received Commission from the two Houses of Parliament afterward turned their Arms against them which they could not do by their Commission as also a great fautor of their proceedings since then spake in my hearing God thereby perhaps representing to the Houses by the Army their own failings toward their Superior And the Armies reasoning was on the like principles viz. That they were entrusted with power for the Kingdoms preservation and that the Parliament degenerating they must not see the Kingdom perish Object 3 Neither may it be received that if the Parliament may take account of what is done by his Majesty in his inferiour Courts Ibid. much more of what is done by him without the authority of any Court For to speak properly the Parliament takes account not of the Kings actions or authority in his Courts but of his Officers and of their administration of that authority and this also by the Kings consent established by Law whereby they are enabled so to do Or to speak yet more properly The Parliament that is the King Lords and Commons for the Parliament is not without the King as being the Head of it but without and in opposition unto him and the Laws they do not take such cognizance Again for that saying That they might much more take account of the Kings actions that are done without the authority of any Court meaning the great administration of Justice and the raising of Arms Seeing no Court is superior to its Author the King therefore no Court can give authority to him but he to them nor can they call him to account for then they were his superiors and had the Regal Power and himself should be no King as is expresly affirm'd in Mr. St. John's speech against Ship-mony of which afterward Humbly represent to him they may his miscarriages and punish his Ministers so it may be done without sedition and assuming the Sword which is inseparable from the Supreme Power Lastly How can this be assented unto that because when the Title is dubious Ibid. pag. ult he is
away 7 the Council-table regulated and restrained 8 the Forests bounded and limited 9 that ye shall have a Triennial Parliament 10 and more then that a perpetual Parliament which none shall have power to dissolve without your selves We should have thought this a dream of happiness yet now we are in the real possession of it We stand chiefly upon security 2. Security whereas the VERY HAVING of these things is a convenient fair security mutually securing one another Then is MORE security offered even in this last Answer of the Kings by removing the personal votes of Popish Lords by the better education of Papists children by supplying the defect of Laws against Recusants c. Wherefore Sir Note let us beware we do not contend for such a hazardous unsafe security as may endanger the loss of what we have already Let us not think we have nothing because we have not all we desire and though we had we cannot make a MATHEMATICAL security All humane caution is susceptible of corruption and failing Gods providence will not be bound Note success must be His. Every man here is bound in conscience to employ his uttermost endeavours to prevent the effusion of BLOOD BLOOD is a CRYING sin Note it pollutes a Land LET VS SAVE OVR LIBERTY AND ESTATES AS WE MAY SAVE OUR SOVLS TOO Now I have freely delivered my own conscience I leave every man freely to his Thus far that worthy Knight and I have been told by one acquainted with him and that did sometime visit him in his last sickness that he said That some of the most active men would not have been for the raising of Arms but that they had a strong opinion Mr. Hamâ— Mâ— Pym and others whom he named that the King had so little interest in the affections of the people that he would never be able to raise force to oppose them One occasion of the War And that he the said Sir Benjamâ—n Rudyard did labour earnestly to disswade them from that conception but could not Add hereunto in the third place 3. Gods Testimony Psal 111. Gods own active testimony as it appears against the courses pursued which is not lightly to be passed for as the Psalmist saith He doth so perform his works that they ought to be had in remembrance For although the Word of God and the particular determination of it unto our special condition by wholesome Laws is a sufficient light ' unto our feet and lanthorn unto our paths yet this Word receives much illustration and confirmation by his works both of nature and therefore these are joyned with it in the Psalm and of providence Psal 19. as Constantine the Great Observes Euseb de vit Constant l. 2. c. 25. viz. That believers had light enough by the Word to discern the true Religion from the false yet the working of providence in order thereunto did make the matter much more evident So in the present affair Ends of the War defeated for whereas there were but two main things for which the War was undertaken Religion and the Laws God seems to declare his judgment concerning our undertaking this way to defend them providence defeating us in both yea and that both after full victory obtained and quiet possession enjoyed Whence you may very reasonably believe Kings Letter from Breda unto the General April 4. 1660 that God is not pleased with the attempts that have been made since he hath usually encreased the confusion by all the success that hath been desired and brought that to pass without effect which the designers have proposed as the best means to settle and compose the Nation as a better hand hath notably observed 1. Religion First for Religion not onely the infinite growth of all even the most horrid opinâ—ons and sects and factions of such denying not onely the Lord that bought them 2 Pet. 2. as the Apostle speaks but the Principle it self the Scriptures together with the contempt of Gods worship it self as well as the established form thereof doth abundantly shew de facto that we have lost Religion but above all that unparallel'd Act for Toleration Proclamation for Toleratâ—on Feb. 15. 1654. that de jure we must lose it doth demonstrate And the precedent thereof that Ordinance of the Lords and Commons whereby the security of it the established Liturgy was removed Ordinance of Lords and Commons Jan. 3. 1644. and the Act against Recusancy repealed whereby the flood-gates for opinions and practices in Religion was thrown open since which that which was but then in semine is now in arbore and that such an one as all the unclean fouls under heaven came and lodged in the branches of it This for Religion Then for the Laws and our Liberties conteined in them 2. The Laws first the Court of Justice untruly so called did de facto and in deed extirpate that Court of Justice and pluck it up by the roots as seizing upon any mans estate liberty and life against Law and upon arbitrary power against the Great Charter But secondly it is avowed by him that of late assumed the Supreme Power that all our Laws and government was dissolved and that he might do de jure and of right what he pleased so the other ground and foundation of the War the Law was lost also And because in this cause he is a very authentick witness as having been so deep an actor in the motion we will hear himself speak and that in the face of the Nation in an Assembly of it which he call'd a Parliament that so God might openly shew us what we would not see before He saith Note Lord Protector 's speech Sept. 12. 1654. page 11 13. That those honest ends of our fighting were not attained and setled Again My power saith he by this resignation from the convention of a few called by himself was BOVNDLESS and VNLIMITED And upon the matter ALL GOVERNMENT DISSOLVED all civil Administrations at an end Again pag. 19. the Soldiery were a considerable part of the Nation especially ALL GOVERNMENT being DISSOLVED I say when ALL GOVERNMENT was thus DISSOLVED and nothing to keep things in order but the SWORD Where by the way you may perceive that the mystery of this iniquity even from the beginning and before there was a blow strucken did work For at the time when the Horses were lifting Note and mony and plate was brought into Guild-Hall discourse being betwixt him and one I know in my hearing touching the final resolution of power He saith That if the King did not do his duty 1. Resolution of Government in a Levellers sense it descended to the Parliament and if the Parliament did not do theirs it devolved to the People Now a few days before the death of the King being pressed in my hearing 2. The application why the Army should act such a thing and asked if
House of Peers carried for them by far the major part of Lords Yet after five repulses contrary to all order and custom it was by tumultuary instigation obtruded again and by a few carried when most of the Peers were forced to absent themselves In like manner was the Bill against root and branch brought on by tumultuary clamours and schismatical terrors Bill against Episcopacy which could never pass till both Houses were sufficiently thinned and over-awed To which partiality while in all reason justice and religion my conscience forbids me by consenting to make up their Votes to Acts of Parliament I must now be urged with an Army and constrained either to hazard my own A cause of the War defence of Episcopacy and my Kingdoms ruine by my defence or prostrate my conscience to the blind obedience of those men whose zealous superstition thinks or pretends they cannot do God and the Church a greater service than utterly to destroy that Primitive Apostolical and antiently Vniversal government of the Church by Bishops And the King hath the like complaint * Kings declaration to all his loving subjects Aug. 12. 1642. p. 8. print Cambr. else-where So that we see what was the mind and affection the scope and intent of the King and the two Houses as then when that Act passed touching Episcopacy Whence it will follow that as they had no intention nor ever consented to the Bill for it to destroy the office so neither did the Commons think that it was so by that Act of taking away their votes or by recalling of the former clause of 1 Eliz. 1. touching Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction for then they would not have prepared another Act for it which never passed the Houses whilst full nor the Kings assent afterward and so is no Law It remaineth therefore that the intention of the Parliament in the repealing of that clause was onely in reference unto the High-commission Court or other excentrical from the legal jurisdiction of Bishops and raised onely by the Kings prerogative yet of use whilst established but removed not for its unprofitableness as to prevent some greater inconvenience It was their jurisdiction in those cases and upon such special commission from the King that there ceased not their ordinary legal and per se Episcopal power of government in this Church * By Act of this present Parliament for restoring Episcopal jurisdiction As hath been of late more authentically evidenced Answ 4 even before this was printed As for the Ordinance that especially at that time as it could at no time cannot countervene a setled Law Neither have the Houses power to declare any thing against Law as we heard above Lord Cant. speech ubi suprà For close therefore I repeat that suit of his and do humbly in the Churches name desire of his Majesty that it may be resolved not onely by all the Reverend Judges of England A supplication to his Majesty and the two Houses of Parliament but by his Majejesty and both Houses of Parliament and then published by them that the Doctrine and Articles of Religion the Liturgy and Worship the Discipline and Government are not against or besides the Laws of this Realm That so the Church-Governors may go on cheerfully in their duty and the peoples minds be quieted by this assurance that neither the Laws nor their Liberties are infringed as Subjects thereby SECT VII Of the Obligation of the League and Covenant AGain it is objected that there is an engagement for the Reformation of the Doctrine Worship Assemblies Discipline and Government in the solemn League and Covenant therefore they are not to be adhered unto Subsect 1. That the Covenant obligeth not OMitting the elaborate and excellent pains of the University of Oxford in this argument Reasons of the University of Oxford concerning the Covenant 1647. Duplies of the professors of Aberdeen to the Brethr. concerning the Covenant 1638. Dr. Lesly Bish of Down in his Visitation speech Lond. 1638. 1. Argument Because it is opposite to after other Oaths c. Gal. 3.14 18. as also that of the Professors of Aberdeen in Scotland And of the Bishop of Down in Ireland the testimony of the three Kingdoms against it I shall propound only four Arguments to evince first the nullity of its obligation and then from thence collect what it binds yet unto The Arguments touching the former are First from the nature and order of this Oath The second from the power imposing of it The third from the matter of the oath it self The last from the scope and end of its framing and imposing First from the nature and order of this Oath When there are two oaths touching the same things and they contradictory one to another if the former be lawful and obliging the latter cannot be so too but void and null ipso facto Hence it is that our Apostle proveth the invalidity of the Ceremonial Law and Covenant being different from and in some sort opposite to the Covenant of Grace because it was made four hundred years after and so could not make the other void So this Oath and Covenant whereof we now speak being contradictory as shall be seen and is evident of it self to former lawful Oaths and Engagements confirmed by the Laws of the Kingdome as the Oath of Allegiance Supremacy Canonical Obedience Subscriptions to the three Articles and Protestations cannot make those former of none effect and is therefore void being taken as it was unlawful to take it unless the Obligation of the former Oaths and Engagements had been by the same or superiour power relaxed As was done by Hermannus Archbishop of Cullen to his subjects Sleid. Com. l. 18 Ad Ann. 1547. when he was no longer able to protect them Which was not our case Our former Oaths and Engagements were agreeable to Law and Equity both in their matter and authority injoyning them This contradictory to them and by an inferiour power yea by such a power as had not authority to do it which brings me to the second Argument 2. Arg. Because it was in posed by unsufficient power in opposition to the lawful authority namely taken from the power or rather the impotency of the imposers as to this act It is proved above that in the Government the King is Supreme by the Laws But if he were but equal yet in a coordinate power if when one desires to do his duty and is well able thereunto the other shall exclude him and act in opposition not only to him but also to the Laws established by all and impose upon the Subjects who are not obliged but as it proceeds from all to submit and to accept of such impositions if voluntarily is a threefold iniquity and injustice First Unto the person excluded against his will and right Secondly Against the liberty of the Subject who is not liable to injunctions proceeding from some but all Thirdly Against the priviledge
men The Br. object Tyranny to Q. Eliz. and the Parl. which is not to be imagined To this first in general If this Reason be admitted it doth not only overthrow all constitutions that concern Religion whether made by Church or State whensoever any turbulent spirit shall fancy them not to be according to the Word And to all States and Churches But it condemns also all the Reformed Churches yea all the Churches and Christian States that are or ever have been I think in the world And particularly majorem in modum and in a special manner the Church of Geneva Ch. of Geneva requires conformity by Oath Revel 13.11 and Calvins Discipline where they are obliged thereunto by oath But to the dilemma in particular neither of the two Horns of this Lamb that speaks like a Dragon have any strength Have they forgotten or never learned that boyes are taught in the very rudiments of Logick and reasoning Kek. Log l. 3. c. 12. can 7. Quod per bonam consequentiam ex testimonio aliquo divino elicitur id EANDEM cum eo vim habet That what by good consequence is drawn from Scripture hath the same force that Scripture hath Did not our Saviour and all the Apostles prove their Doctrine so unto those that received nothing from them but what they proved Do not the Brethren think their Sermons and this their Book ought to be obeyed absolutely and in all the points they have excepted And indeed a good consequence is nothing but a natural effect Consequences And an effect is of the same nature with its cause yea as one saith nothing else but the cause in act or at least the cause is in the effect R. Hook l. 5. so is Scripture in the true consequénces of it And yet subscription to such conclusions do not argue the Authors to be infallible but only to be eyes unto the weaker-sighted to see the light by Tert. Advers Haeret. Omnia quidem dicta Domini omnibus posita sunt quae per aures judaeorum ad nos pervenerunt Gods Word is propounded unto all but it comes to us by the ears and so by the eyes of others And because men are called to subscribe and not children who should have their eyes their subscription only acknowledgeth that the Church and State have taken a true sample from the original leaving this still as the standard as prior tempore ordine naturâ dignitate Such are all the true determinations of Judges in reference to the Law as Deut. 17. They shall expound the Law to thee And the disobedient there was punished with death for contempt of the sentence of the Church and State and yet their determinations were not of equal authority but of equal force with the Law it self So here Secondly To the other horn of this Lamb or dilemma That else the statute did intend to tyrannize over the conscience which they say is not to be imagined Oportuit esse memorem Answ Did not the Brethren in the very lines immediately going before acknowledge yea urge it as an argument out of Sir Edw. Coke who saith He heard Wray Chief Justice of the K. Bench Pasch 23 Eliz. quoting Dier 23 Eliz. 377. lib. 6. fol. 69. Greens case Smiths case report that where one Smith subscribed to the 39 Articles of Religion with this addition so far forth as the same were agreeable to the Word of God that it was resolved by him and all the Judges of England that this subscription was not according to the Statute of Eliz 13. Because the Statute required an absolute subscription and this subscription made it conditional And that this Act was made for avoiding diversity of opinions c. And by this additâ—on the party might by his own private opinion take some of them to be against the Word of God and by this means diversity of opinions should not be avoided which was the scope of the Statute and the very Act it self made touching subscription hereby by of none effect Thus far their own quotation So then it is evident by the words themselves quoted just before and by the sentence of all the Judges of England that the Statute requireth absolute subscription which if it do they say it did intend to tyrannize over the consciences of men So then Q. Eliz. and that Parl. with all the Kings and Parliaments since that have confirmed that Act were Tyrants It concerns the present Parl. to vindicate their predecessors in this point also To what they add concerning mens subscribing when they are young Subscription of young men and before their judgments be mature It is answered first Those admitted to the Ministry though they may be as Timothy was but young in age yet they are not to be Novices in knowledge And Subscription is a good bond upon them Use of subscription both for the peoples good and their own to preserve them from novelties and apostacy But so that no man is engaged against the Word of God I hope then they will not urge the obligation of the Covenant upon those who have not had time or solidity throughly to ponder and weigh all the Articles thereof in the ballance of the Sanctuary and in the scale of the Law as they phrase it To the last of this head The liberty given to tender consciences Liberty to tender consciences is to be in things of lesser not of fundamentall consequence and in the Articles of the Faith for then how should the Magistrate be custos utriusque tabulae How should the Prince perform his trust of the souls as well as the bodies estates and names of his people How should there be one God one Faith one Baptisme in a particular Church and we all with one mouth glorifie God This is also against the practice of all Churches we have no such custome 1 Cor. 11. nor the Churches of God Thus much in reply to their three general first object against the Articles 1. Their doubtfulnesse 2. Their erroniousness and 3. The exacting of subscription to them I come now to the fourth viz. Their defectiveness and imperfection Defectiveness of the Artic. Where the first Exception is that Art 6. it is said that In the name of the holy Scripture we understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament of whose Authority there was never any doubt in the Church The Brethren oppose that some Books and passages of the New Testament have been doubted of as the Epistle of James the second Epistle of Peter The Article they say is defective in not enumerating all the Books of the New Testament as it had done those of the Old and of the Apocrypha comprehending them only under this expression All the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received These words of the Article being the former contains no matter of doctrine namely those of which there was never any doubt in the
admit all those to govern whom in that very question and the answer to it they did intend to oblige to subjection and obedience So gross is the Brethrens conscience to dare to utter and their confidence to think that so palpable a Calumny would pass undiscerned yea so ridiculous their hopes as to fancy it would bee beleeved To the third viz. that out of the Liturgy Proof 3 Because it is said in the Rubrick before the Communion Liberty given to the Minister by the Liturgy touching Communicants that the Minister is authorized to restrain notorious offenders from the Sacrament till they have openly declared themselves to have repented The Brethren query What is this but as much and as high jurisdiction as any Bishop can use in that particular Answ But first how shall wee make a coat for the Moon sometime they struggle as even lately if not at present for more power about the Sacrament and when my self mentioned this Rubrick unto one Mr. J. Cas that is no Cypher among them hee said it was not sufficient Again if the Brethren are by Law already instated in as much jurisdiction as any Bishop can use about the Sacrament and that is the greatest point why rest they not in it why blaspheme they the Common-prayer-book wherein it is contained why do they so wrestle imponere pelio ossam And make the Church and State as blocks to be For steps to mount unto their Prelacy But thirdly There are some Acts common in all governments and some proper A petty Constable may charge any man upon a warrant to assist him as well as the Sheriff of the County upon a writ Some kinde of share in government and exercise of Discipline was never denyed to a Minister as a Minister no more than a share with the Bishop in Preaching of the Word But Jurisdiction is a word of a louder sound than Discipline and the Government of the Church than some kinde of restraining a particular communicant Although those Acts belong to Government and are exercised by private Ministers yet they are about lesser things And also it is by concession and delegation not to bee challenged I think of right otherwise than as the officer of the Church appointed in her name to do that which of himself and as a private Minister hee could not do For then there must bee not as the Brethren say if the Bishops have sole Jurisdiction so many Popes that is six and twenty but sixty times six and twenty Popes in England For every Minister might then exclude whom hee pleased from the Communion and exercise an absolute tyranny upon the people And so much of their third proof Their last is from Law Proof 4 which because I do not understand it much that it belongs unto the Judges to determine Answ That the Bishops have appealed thereunto that my self have said above something to that point That * Vid. Tract of the R. Bp. Linc. now published of the Legality of the Bishops Courts c. Wherein the Kings Proclam and Judges sentence are recited it is declared already by the sentence of all the Judges Enrolled in the Courts of Record and by his late Majesties Proclamation and that it is like shortly to be further determined I supersede from further answering although I could Onely I may not pass the great inconsideration of the Brethren with so much virulency resisting the useful restitution of the Bishops into Parliament which is the interest of Christ himself of the Ministry and of the Kingdome First Though we are blessed be God all Christians yet our masters cause will probably bee minded a little more intently by those whom hee hath commissioned for that purpose the Ministry the honour and flower whereof are the Prelacy Again other persons have a vote in Parliament more immediately by their proxyes Why England should observe Episcopacy the Clergy none but in the Bishops Lastly The publick interest to bee concerned may well bee thought from not onely that engagement of thankfulness that lyes upon it unto Prelacy under whose Government and by whose Influence and through the effusion of the blood of whose members Religion hath been restored nor onely in regard they were by the Antient Laws even the first members next the head for the form was The Kings Majesty the Lords Spiritual and Temporal Nor onely in respect perhaps of some higher ingagements But from our experience the Mistress of fools For first neither King Lords nor Commons continued in power long after the Bishops ejectment And next hitherto wee have had no face of a Church no certainty of Doctrine no observation of Worship no exercise of Government to speak of but all things have gone to Babylonian confusion and antique Chaos Discite justitiam moniti The Phrygians will not learn till lasht they be If that amend us not then worse are wee I shall for close touching the Civil honour annexed unto Episcopacy in this Nation Zanch. confess cap. 25. Aph. 21. subjoyn the conclusion and judgement of the learned Zanchy and that in the confession of his Faith The conclusion is Episcoporum qui principes sunt politicam authoritatem non negari That the Civil Authority of Bishops which are also Magistrates or Princes is not denyed The explication follows Interim non diffitemur Episcopos qui simul etiam principes sunt praeter autoritatem Ecclesiasticam sua etiam habere jura politica Secularesque potestates quemadmodum reliqui habent principes jus imperandi secularia jus gladii nonnullos jus elegendi confirmandique Reges Imperatores aliaque politica constituendi administrandi subditosque sibi populos ad obedientiam sibi praestandam cogendi c. That besides their Ecclesiastical Authority they have also Civil Rights and SECULAR Powers and may constrain obedience unto such their powers c. which hee contradicts not in the observations Neither doth hee contradict it in his explication of that Aphorism And that place Mat. 20.25 It shall not bee so among you is understood by some to concern all Christians saith hee neither doth hee refute it SECT VI. The close of the Church-Controversie HAving thus far passed through all the five heads of motives unto Separation viz. The Doctrine the Worship the Assemblies the Discipline and the Government with replies unto them and having also vindicated them according to my weak arm by the sword of the spirit against the opposers of them I come now to close this whole dissertation His present Majesty hath indulged to the Brethren and their adherents very much in all the Premises May it prove successeful But his Grandfather King James having tasted of this Solunne geuse and wilde fowl whilst in Scotland and being pressed at his first coming as His Majesty now to the like here hee utters his judgement upon observation of Gods presence with this Church and Nation in these words We have seen the Kingdome under that form of Religion